Bandera County v. Susan Hollingsworth
2013 Tex. App. LEXIS 14473
| Tex. App. | 2013Background
- Bandera County sued Hollingsworths for delinquent taxes on 2005–2008 omitted property; a November 2009 notice claimed taxes plus penalties and accrued interest, with a February 2011 delinquency date, but the Hollingsworths paid only the 2009 base tax.
- Afterward, the Hollingsworths questioned why they were sued given the November 2009 statement, leading to an April 22, 2010 letter correcting the delinquency date and stating penalties/fees should have been included; the county offered to accept base tax plus 1% per month interest if paid by June 1, 2010.
- From June 2010, counsel exchanged settlement proposals; the Hollingsworths counterclaimed for (1) enforceable Rule 11 settlement; (2) correct tax amounts and delinquency date; (3) attorneys’ fees.
- The Hollingsworths moved for summary judgment on their counterclaims; the County asserted governmental immunity via a plea to the jurisdiction.
- The trial court denied the plea to the jurisdiction as to the Rule 11 claim, granted summary judgment on the other claim, and awarded the Hollingsworths attorney’s fees; Bandera County appeals.
- The appellate court reversed in part, dismissed the declaratory-judgment claim, reversed the Rule 11 settlement grant, and remanded the case for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the County immune from the Hollingsworths’ Rule 11 settlement/declaratory-judgment claim? | Hollingsworths argue immunity should not bar enforcement of a valid settlement. | County contends immunity bars declaratory relief on an enforceable agreement. | No; County not immune on the Rule 11 claim. |
| Did the evidence establish a binding Rule 11 agreement? | There was a meeting of the minds to settle based on forgiving penalties and attorney fees. | No meeting of the minds on essential terms; writings incomplete. | No enforceable settlement; judgment reversed on this claim. |
| Was the declaratory-judgment claim about the amount owed and delinquency date barred or improper? | Claim seeks determination of amount owed and delinquency date under Tax Code. | Declaratory Judgments Act does not waive immunity; claim should be dismissed. | Trial court erred; declaratory-judgment claim dismissed. |
| Did the court err in awarding attorney’s fees under the Declaratory Judgments Act given the outcome on the settlement issue? | Fees may be recoverable if the underlying claim would permit them. | DJA fees not recoverable against county; no basis for fee award if settlement invalid. | Fees reversed along with declaratory-judgment ruling; remand for Rule 11 issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reata Constr. Corp. v. City of Dallas, 197 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2006) (governmental-immunity considerations and settlement enforcement)
- Lawson v. Texas A&M Univ. Sys., 87 S.W.3d 518 (Tex. 2002) (immunity and settlement of claims where the government engages in litigation)
- Albert v. City of Dallas, 354 S.W.3d 368 (Tex. 2011) (governmental-entity immunity boundaries when asserting affirmative claims)
- Padilla v. LaFrance, 907 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. 1995) (Rule 11 writing requirements for settlement agreements)
- Harris v. Balderas, 27 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App.—San Antonio 2000) (summary-judgment enforcement of settlement requires meeting of minds on essential terms)
- G.D. Holdings, Inc. v. H.D.H. Land & Timber, L.P., 407 S.W.3d 856 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2013) (contract-formation = meeting of the minds and complete terms)